Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99678
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain basereality.com from 209.85.192.182 cause and error)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADyq6sKyuDisCVVhwopL3V2VaUu5rs97V6n8esyD8LYHZBVTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEsg9X0sJ=JYxHfAs6a2Pp4Oymtkqi+JcDfX2+u4MP_pZTK9NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o3ynh3C=CBxD4LaLyE9DsLPhBExyvCgtabvn4cYuz4Vxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEsg9X3EbgYiMdA8eUV1usKBTfJSbiJFG7E7mU4-hBRaAP+uyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEsg9X1cxQY+TBM2Q0zsdvc0QcfrJMxgfefNtdoFstWxfrrJYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJW__o3PtvPzQo+yk=3sm8mE-ytZUJ-Cbo8iXgK4zs3Uyhb_KA@mail.gmail.com> <CADyq6sKyuDisCVVhwopL3V2VaUu5rs97V6n8esyD8LYHZBVTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:07:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuTX+nXJjD3N8MYo-PtUgUEPU2-U1TBhU1Nz=s3GzPB+Rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>
Cc: Kalle Sommer Nielsen <kalle@php.net>, David Rodrigues <david.proweb@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Final variables
From: danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

On 29 June 2017 at 05:20, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote:

> References to properties ...is effectively a BC break for anything
> using reflection and closure scope binding

No it's not.

If that feature was brought into PHP, any code that is currently
valid, that the library is capable of reflecting, would still be valid
code, that the library would still be capable of reflecting.

Yes, there would be some new syntax which the library wouldn't be
aware of, which wouldn't be supported in the library, but that is not
a BC break.

Adding new syntax to a language does mean that people who have
libraries that inspect code based on the current syntax would need to
choose between:

* Updating the library to support the new syntax, or asking for a PR for that.

* Saying that the library can inspect code up to the version before
the new syntax was introduced, but doesn't support later code.

I can see that would be annoying for the authors of those libraries,
as they would obviously prefer to not have to make that choice, but it
isn't a BC break.


> *snip - lots of difficult to solve technical problems*
>
> This is the exact same set of problems we had with the typed properties
> RFC, and which caused the RFC to fail: please take all these in
> consideration while designing the feature.

Yup. I think any discussion without at least some kind of plan for
dealing with the technical problems for implementing this isn't likely
to be productive.

cheers
Dan